HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works December 12 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
December 12, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
14
15
16
17
18
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION BY MIKE KAUFMAN REGARDING THE SUMAS ENERGY
2 PROJECT (AB2000-074A)
(Clerk’s Note: Councilmember McShane did not attend this portion of the
meeting due to his membership on the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council)
Brenner stated she recalled that there would be more discussion on this issue
if there were any other questions from the public. She hadn’t received any more
questions.
Liz McDougal, Perkins Coie, attorney for Sumas Energy 2, stated earthquake
issues are addressed in the application that Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) submitted to the
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). Earthquake and related safety
issues were addressed during the EFSEC adjudication proceeding, particularly in the
testimony and evidence presented by Mike Woltersdorf, a safety expert. There are
transcripts of the testimony. There may have been written references included in
the written pre-file testimony.
Brenner stated she generally gets the information from SE2. She asked for
anything regarding the testimony submitted regarding earthquakes. She wanted to
see anything in writing on that subject that was submitted to EFSEC. She
appreciated that SE2 says that they testified on earthquake hazards, but she
wanted to see it. McDougal stated she would provide the information requested.
Very specific earthquake issues would be addressed at the final design phase. They
are now in the preliminary design phase. SE2 has asked Dr. Easterbrook for his
input on the final design.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Brenner questioned when SE2 asked for Dr. Easterbrook's input. McDougal
stated it has been since the last Council meeting.
Brenner requested a copy of that request.
Hoag asked if Mike Woltersdorf was the fire expert. McDougal stated he was
the safety expert.
Hoag asked if Mr. Woltersdorf's testimony was given during the pre-file
testimony or spoken during the hearings. McDougal stated she remembered he
testified during the public hearings. David Grant had questions about what would
happen with the diesel tank in the event of a catastrophic occurrence. That
discussion was focused mostly on an earthquake upheaval. She didn't recall
whether that information was in his written pre-file testimony.
Hoag stated she understood that Perkins Coie has the entire transcript from
the entire hearing. She asked for the information on what the application says
regarding earthquake issues and also what Mike Woltersdorf had said on the
earthquake issues. Then, she would know what SE2 has for earthquake
information. She requested any information that EFSEC might have on
earthquakes. McDougal stated she would do what she could to provide that
information later in the day.
Crawford requested to read a letter into the record from SE2. The letter
makes a comment on the EFSEC hearing process related to earthquakes.
Brenner stated reading the letter into the record was fine, but she wanted to
make sure it was clear that the letter was not an EFSEC document.
Hoag asked for the opportunity to respond to whatever is said in the letter
because Mr. Martin is their protagonist. Reading something like that into the
record, unchallenged, poses problems for her.
Brenner stated she didn't want a big debate.
Hoag stated that the committee members could just get copies of the letter
to avoid a debate.
Brenner stated that information was raised at the previous meeting about
EFSEC. She would allow Councilmember Hoag an opportunity to respond.
Hoag stated she would prefer to just get a copy of the letter.
Crawford stated that the letter (on file) was from Sumas Energy 2 to the
Mayor and City Council of the City of Sumas, dated December 2, 2000, regarding
the seismic concerns.
Brenner stated that she didn't know of any other councilmember, besides
Councilmember Crawford, who received a copy of that letter from SE2. The
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
councilmembers' job is to take in public information, not to educate the proponent
of a facility. She spoke to a geologist who said that both faults have been known
about. It isn't new information. The new information had to do with the depth and
other details.
Hoag responded to the letter. It was mentioned that a significant amount of
geological study and soil study went on, including seven borings to a depth of 100
feet. The state Department of Ecology had problems with the insufficiency of
geologic study that was done in the area, and they were not even talking about
seismicity. They were talking about wetlands. The last she'd heard, they hadn't
agreed to the issue of permitting because more study was needed on the soils in
the area.
It was mentioned that no one brought this information to SE2 or other
government officials. The citizens that brought this forward to her attention also
brought it forward to the City of Sumas and Dr. Easterbrook. This new information
was uncovered by some concerned citizens who just happened to hear that Dr.
Easterbrook was publishing a study of the same area. The citizens consulted Dr.
Easterbrook to find out more about it. That is what Dr. Easterbrook brought to the
Council.
Regarding the information being brought to SE2 for consideration in the final
design, Dr. Easterbrook said one cannot design a building to withstand the kind of
ground level change that would occur if they are right on a fault. Dr. Easterbrook
said that there could be a 15 to 20 foot change in ground level within 20 seconds.
It is quite presumptuous to say they would design a building around that. One
cannot design for that.
It was mentioned that the building would be built to seismic zone three
standards. She asked for a copy of the seismic zone standards.
The letter objected to the sensationalism when people talked about tsunamis
and mountains collapsing on cities. She sat through the presentation by Dr.
Easterbrook. She recalled that he described a tsunami that occurred in Japan
because of a quake that took place off the coast, that they expect another quake
like that in 300 years, and the 300 years are now up. However, Dr. Easterbrook
said they embarked on this study because they were looking at landslide activity in
that area, and he found that it was related to the faults.
The letter said that natural gas, fuel, and ammonia are all over the place.
However, this plant is going to have at least a 16-inch natural gas line. That is not
all over the place in Whatcom County. That is huge. If that line is in a seismic
activity zone on a known fault that causes landslides and liquefaction, they are
asking for huge trouble. She saw the blow up on Sumas Mountain a while back. To
put a line and a facility like this in an area where they know they are going to have
trouble is totally irresponsible. None of the ammonia tanks or oil tanks are similar
to what they have here in Whatcom County. They are much larger than what
Whatcom County has. Those questions have been raised and answered at all the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
different government levels. It is not just a diesel tank. It was proposed to be a
2.5 million gallon oil tank, and now they are talking about 1.5 million gallons. The
berm that contains it would be destroyed if there was an earthquake that destroyed
the tank. The flammable material would go into Johnson Creek and run right
through the City of Sumas. There are legitimate concerns raised here. She
objected to the fact that the letter objected to the sensationalism.
Brenner stated something seemed odd. The person who wrote the letter is
the vice-president. He knew the presentation happened. She questioned whether
the Council Office was contacted to get the minutes and audiotape recording of the
meeting. She found the letter to be inappropriate at the last minute. Dr.
Easterbrook's presentation was very informative. It was new information to her.
The presentation was not sensational. She was impressed with the professionalism
that was displayed at the meeting.
Crawford stated the letter was written to the City of Sumas. He just received
a copy. The author of the letter did not write to the County Council.
Brenner stated she was concerned that all the councilmembers did not
receive the letter, even when they are mentioned in the letter. The County Council
does not personally go out and inform anyone who might possibly be interested in
an issue. The Council did public notification. It was a public meeting. Anyone
could have been there. It wasn't a surprise meeting. This letter was a surprise.
Dawson stated that part of Dr. Easterbrook's presentation showed the
amount of seismic activity, which is new information, as well as the depth of the
soil that has potential for liquefaction. She understood that someone from SE2
would be at the evening meeting to condense the information they think that EFSEC
hasn't received.
Brenner stated that Dr. Easterbrook said on the record that some of this
information is new. She didn't sense that there was any attempt to add something
to the record at the last minute. The work he did was just being finalized.
Hoag stated each time anyone has brought forward a concern about the
plant, Chuck Martin has responded by minimizing the concern, and then attacking
the opponents as being either sensationalistic or distorting facts. This letter is the
same pattern. Dr. Easterbrook made it clear he was not taking a side on the issue,
but that he had new information and had been asked to share that information.
This idea of incorporating this information into the design is totally missing the
mark. It goes to the core issue of whether this is an appropriate place to site a
power plant. That goes to the permitting issue, not the design issue, especially
when a geologist with Dr. Easterbrook's credentials says that one cannot build a
building to withstand what could occur at that area.
Brenner stated this item would be discussed at the evening’s meeting during
open session.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING SUPPORT OF SAFER HIGHWAYS (AB2000-
409)
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane joined the meeting.)
Brenner stated she would turn the discussion over to Councilmember
Dawson, who brought the information forward.
Dawson stated the representative for the Washington Alliance for Safe
Highways says that there is going to be a reconsideration at the federal level for
some of the different states who have moratoriums on allowing certain trucks.
They are talking about triple trailer trucks. In some areas of the state where the
weather is dry and there are wide highways, the trucks could be accommodated.
In the State of Washington there are infrastructure problems and snow and ice in
the wintertime. She did not support allowing these trucks in the Washington State.
Dale Brandland, as a representative of the Sheriff’s Association, also does not
support the reconsideration. She recommended that the County Council adopt a
resolution similar to the resolution from Alabama on packet page 177, omitting the
fourth "Whereas" statement that refers specifically to the state of Minnesota.
Incorporate the second "Whereas" statement on packet page 178. She would
substitute that "Whereas" statement for the fourth statement on packet page 177.
She so moved.
Brenner stated she would not want to see these trucks on any road in any
state. There have been a lot of studies done about dangers involved with semi
trucks. They need so much more time to stop, turn, and shift lanes. No matter
how wonderful the roads or the weather are, the trucks are still going to be on
roads with other vehicles. She supported the motion. She didn't want to leave the
impression that these trucks would be okay on some roads.
Dawson stated she didn't think they would be for the state of Washington at
all. She talked to a truck driver about this who drives between Western
Washington and Eastern Washington. He didn't want to allow these trucks. The
representative from the Washington Alliance for Safe Highways says that is the
common sentiment of the truck drivers.
Brenner stated this is a way to use fewer truck drivers to do more work.
They can take the human element out of the equation only so much before they
really have someone maximizing profits by maximizing risks. This is a perfect
example. She would rather see more truck drivers with smaller trucks.
Crawford questioned whether this is an issue that is coming before the
Washington State legislature.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Dawson stated this is being addressed at the federal level. The
representative wants to get the different associations and governments to support
her lobbying efforts.
Crawford questioned whether the representative wants the federal
government to prohibit three trailers on a truck.
Brenner stated there was a letter from the representative about that issue.
Apparently there is a law that is about to elapse.
Dawson stated that each of the states could reconsider the law. It would be
reconsidered for Washington State.
Crawford stated Oregon and Utah both allow three trailers. The State of
Washington does not currently allow three trailers. He questioned whether
Whatcom County would pass a resolution to tell the federal government it doesn't
think that Oregon and Utah should allow trucks with three trailers.
Dawson stated the resolution would be given to the Washington Alliance for
Safe Highways to use to lobby on the County's behalf.
Brenner believed that there is a federal law in place that would expire, or is
up for re-negotiation. It is a federal law that has put a moratorium on this.
Crawford stated it is a state issue. There are states that allow three trailers
right now.
Brenner stated her focus is to be part of an alliance at the federal level that
would encourage the federal government not to allow this.
Crawford stated he didn't understand that there was a current federal freeze.
Three trailers are allowed in Utah and Oregon.
Brenner stated she didn't know. She was interested in doing anything they
can at the federal level and to keep the momentum going at the state level. She
didn't have any information on how the federal freeze affects Oregon or Utah. The
information shows that there are agencies and elected officials in Oregon who
would like to see the triple trailers eliminated. Those states may have been
grandfathered in.
Dawson restated her motion to adopt the resolution on packet page 177,
omitting the fourth "Whereas" statement and replacing it with the second
"Whereas" statement on packet page 178.
Hoag stated she appreciated the resolution from the Itasca County Board of
Commissioners acknowledging the importance of transportation issues to mining,
manufacturing, logging, and papermaking industries. It goes on to recognize the
safety concerns relative to longer tractor-trailers, heavier gross weights, and
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
recognizing there are bridge and highway maintenance costs concerns relative to
these. That is an important one. The resolution on packet page 179 talks about
parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) using processes to
pressure the United States to permit larger and heavier trucks. She suggested
sending a resolution that puts together the various concerns that the
councilmembers share.
Brenner moved to support the resolution in concept, and that Councilmember
Dawson incorporate specific concerns from the other councilmembers. She wanted
to see language that the Council acknowledges that trucks are used, and that
imposing a moratorium would not impact the trucking industry or the services that
the trucking industry provides. That is very important. This is a new thing. To
her, this could hurt the industry because there would be fewer truckers and bigger
trucks.
Hoag stated she agreed with the philosophy, but it doesn't belong in the
resolution because they would have to support how they arrived at that conclusion.
It isn't necessary.
Dawson stated she would agree to putting language in the resolution about
the importance of transportation issues to various industries.
Brenner stated she wanted to include language that the resolution that a
moratorium would not have a negative impact on the industry. That language
couldn't hurt it.
Hoag asked for a finished copy of the proposed resolution for the evening's
Council meeting. She didn't like to vote on things in concept at the full Council.
Dawson questioned whether they want to vote to be a member of the
Washington Alliance for Safe Highways. That way, the Council would receive
information from them.
Brenner restated the motion to oppose in concept state or federal legislation
that would allow increases in tractor-trailer combinations sizes.
Crawford asked if the committee would want to hear the other side of the
issue before the resolution is approved. There is an obvious benefit to the third
trailer. The obvious benefit is reducing the number of trucks on the road. Another
benefit is that they are reducing the cost of transportation of the goods, which
affects the entire economy. Because this is not even allowed currently in the state,
he didn’t understand why the Whatcom County Council would take this up. They
are not under threat. This is a state issue. The Alliance says that the decision
should be at the option of the states. The State of Washington could currently
allow them, and it doesn't. Also, if the County Council were to take up the
argument, they should hear from an advocate of the benefits. He imagined the
trucking industry, which as probably developed a position on the safety issue as a
special interest advocate, would want to be heard.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Brenner stated this is the last meeting of the year. She understood that the
federal legislation is up right now. The sooner their voices are heard, the better.
Many times the Council takes positions on national issues. This is important for any
of their constituents who are driving in any of the states where they are allowed. It
is a safety issue. She assumed that the industry would say that the larger trucks
would save money and the amount of trucks on the highway. She already assumed
that. Her concern was with the safety factor on vehicles that large on the highway.
She's already seen data about the safety of the double tractor-trailer. Her common
sense tells her that, if she has issues with the double tractor-trailer, then adding
another trailer is not going to reduce the concern. It may reduce the number of
trucks, but would definitely increase the safety concerns with the particular truck on
the road. She was not anxious and did not need to hear more information. She
supported it the way it is. If a majority of the councilmembers want to wait and
make this a bigger issue, she didn't have a problem, but she didn't need it
personally.
Hoag stated she didn't think some of Councilmember Crawford's statements
regarding wear and tear and bridges are supported by statistics. She agreed with
his comments about hearing the other side, however they are talking about a no-
brainer. The trucking industry is pushing for Congress to require the states to
permit bigger trucks to travel on their roads. It is important to take a stand against
it. She suggested a compromise to pass the resolution expressing the Council's
concern, and wait to joint the coalition next year so they can take in more
information on exactly what the coalition does, who they are, and hear opponents
information. A resolution against bigger trucks is essential to protect the health
and safety of their constituents. The other side of it is strictly economics. They
want to make more money. But that shouldn't be done at the expense of the lives
and safety of the people.
Brenner suggested passing the resolution now, and invite a representative
from the trucking industry to make a presentation. The Principle of Precaution is
where one keeps things as safe as possible until he or she hears different. She
supported the resolution as it is.
(Clerk’s Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated he liked most the resolution from the Washington State
Sheriff's Association. It specifically calls out where the issue is going to arise,
which is in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. That seems to be
where the change could actually occur.
Brenner agreed. She questioned whether Councilmember McShane wanted
that language incorporated in the resolution.
McShane stated he did.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Brenner stated the resolution from the Sheriff's Association was excellent,
but she thought there parts of the other that were great too. The more of these
concerns they put it, the better it would be.
Brenner restated her motion to support the position of not increasing to triple
tractor-trailer trucks on the roads, and continue whatever legislation is in place to
prevent that. Any councilmembers who have specific additions should get those to
Councilmember Dawson, who would create a draft resolution later in the afternoon.
McShane stated that he supported the motion, but would like to hear the
other side of the story. There may be something about this that he didn't know
about. He was concerned also about the timeliness, which is why he would support
it now.
Brenner stated they get resolutions all the time where they don't listen to
both sides because the issue is common sense. She really believed that this
resolution only gives their position in this moment of time. The resolution has no
force of law. If there is some overriding argument on the other side, the Council
could write another resolution in the future. She was extremely comfortable
supporting this without any other information. If something comes up in the
future, the Council could always change its position or write another resolution.
She questioned whether Councilmember Crawford would be willing to contact the
trucking industry to see if they are interested in sending information or making a
presentation.
Crawford stated he would consider it.
McShane stated he would be interested in knowing what Ludtke Trucking or
Lynden Transport has to say about it right now.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A TWENTY YEAR LUMMI
ISLAND FERRY OPERATION PLAN (AB2000-429)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that before the Council is the
current draft version of the scope of work to get consultant support, which would
gather an idea of what the Lummi Island service demands would be for the next
twenty years. The plan is not intended to justify purchasing a larger boat, as was
reported on the radio. The plan is meant to address the service demands that
Lummi Island would pose and how the County intends to respond to those
demands. It doesn't mean anything about a boat configuration or what other
services might be provided. Two of the reasons a consultant is being considered
are to make sure a third party collects the information and engages the community
in identifying the range of service demands, so the Council would have full
disclosure in that regard.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
In previous discussions, there was reference to a 14-year ferry plan. That is
a statutory reference relative specifically to capital asset management. He sees the
20-year planning exercise as updating a 14-year plan as a task within the exercise.
They would evaluate the capital assets, such as their life expectancy. The plan
would go much further than that in influencing how they deal with capital elements
in the future.
Task one would require engaging in a maritime engineering architectural firm
that is qualified to do it. Every other task on the list would not require that kind of
qualification. One of the goals of the Public Works Department 2001 budget is
completion of such a plan. Every year, the department does something that
resembles an evaluation of the condition of the boat, but not something that is
long-term in nature dealing with life expectancy, as compared to inspection status.
He asked for any suggestions from the councilmembers. His goal is to make sure
they are engaging the community in a way that he summarizes what the
community sees as service demands. He is not completing a subarea plan relative
to Lummi Island. He emphasizes the term "high/low range." He is trying to get a
general idea of what the service demands may be within a range, and not trying to
pinpoint the demands that would be done through a subarea planning process.
Brenner stated that just looking at the relationship of the lease agreement, in
section IV, is not as much as what she wanted to do. She wanted to add an item
under the Evaluation section II that there be an evaluation of the current and future
probability of an ongoing agreement with the Lummi Nation regarding
infrastructure. As the County pays for more and more infrastructure out there, it
becomes more and more obligated. Her concern then would be that the economic
situation could change for the Lummi Nation, and they may want to do something
else. The County needs a future assurance from the Lummi Nation that the County
would not suddenly see some kind of a dramatic escalation in a lease cost. She
didn't know if that was even possible, but she liked the idea of evaluating things 14
or 20 years out.
Hoag questioned how they could determine the Lummi Island growth
potential. If they build a bigger ferry, there will be more growth. If they don't, it
would limit growth. She didn't know what the sentiment is on the island. On
Vashon Island, where she lived, there was talk of building a bridge. She questioned
how the County is going to look at the potential growth without knowing the size of
the ferry. Monsen agreed it is a chicken-and-egg scenario. They need to develop a
process that deals with that. To have that discussion, they need to know what the
range is. There may be other conditions that truly limit growth. As they compare
the conditions, they would resolve the chicken-and-egg scenario.
Hoag questioned whether two scenarios would be developed for the high/low
range, such as a low range of growth and a high range of growth. Monsen stated
he would imagine there would be a number of scenarios. Each factor involved,
such as the size of the boat, ability to develop, and water supply, would influence
different alternatives. They would not develop only one or two alternatives to be
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
considered. There would be a range of alternatives that would promote a broad
discussion about the service that the County intends to provide.
Hoag questioned what projections would be brought forward. Monsen stated
he envisioned that a significant number of the items under section III would each
have their own range.
Brenner stated she didn't understand the ferry was going to be the focal
point of growth. She thought that "growth limiting factors" and "growth
projections" referred to looking at each potential scenario and determining how
each scenario would affect what particular kind of ferry service is required, rather
than trying to determine how various changes in ferry service affects each scenario.
Monsen stated that was correct.
Brenner stated she would rather see the evaluation done that way because
they would get a projection on the biggest ferry possible and the smallest ferry
possible. She didn't want the ferry to be the variable point. She wanted the other
factors to be the variables. Monsen agreed. He would try to do an evaluation that
removes the factor of the boat as much as possible, and then address the different
service delivery options. One service delivery option relates to the size of the boat,
but that is only one element of service delivery.
Hoag stated that if they only approach it from that standpoint, then they
wouldn't represent the interest of a large number of people on the island, which is
to limit access to the island in order to limit growth.
Brenner stated that part of the growth limiting factors is the community's
needs and desires.
Dawson stated growth could be limited through zoning. She believed that
there has been past legislation that the ferry was not to be used to limit growth.
Monsen stated it was a previous policy statement by the County, that the ferry
would not be the factor by which it controls development potential on the island.
One of the factors of this evaluation is whether or not to reconsider that policy
position. The Council will be forced to deal with that question.
Hoag questioned when that was adopted.
Dawson stated it was adopted in the 1980's.
Monsen stated it is a concept attached to the ordinance dealing with setting
the ferry rates. The Council hasn't changed the ferry rates for some time.
Brenner stated that the Council adopted a position that the ferry would not
be used to determine growth, not to limit growth. The County would use zoning to
determine the growth. The Council doesn't want to use the ferry to limit or
increase growth. The Council wants the ferry to be the product of what it finds out
about growth potential rather than the driving force.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
McShane questioned what tasks would require the services of a consultant.
Monsen stated it is certain they would need a consultant for task one. He
recommended that, at this point, they bring in a third party for tasks two and three
who would facilitate collecting the information and more actively engage the
community in the collection and development of that information. Whether they
require a facilitator for tasks four and five is a decision that can be made in the
future.
Brenner stated she would like to have a third party help the County evaluate
task four.
McShane stated his concern was the cost and necessity of how much needs
to be done at this time. He questioned whether this was worthwhile to do in the big
scheme of spending money. He questioned where the funding from this would
come from. Monsen stated he expected that task one could be accomplished for
between $10,000 and $20,000. Beyond that, he didn't know. Part of the request
for proposals (RFP) process would be to sort that out. If a response came in for
$200,000, it probably means they asked too many questions. Before he did an
advertisement for an RFP, he would try to consult with some folks out there about
the level of effort needed to gather the information. At this point, he didn't
envision talking about high dollar amounts. The money would come from the Road
fund.
McShane stated bringing in an outside person might be helpful. He
questioned whether there would be much contention with the island that would
require a third-party facilitator. Monsen stated some of the issues are easy to deal
with. A significant number of items are contentious. People on and off the island
are very passionate about some of these topics.
Brenner stated she didn't see anything that would not end up being
contentious. If there are opponents and proponents both trying to make a helpful
position, everything would become contentious. This is a contentious issue. The
County has an obligation, given all the time and effort that has been put in by the
Lummi Island community, to do as much of this in as much detail as possible so
that people feel they were part of the process and the final product. The County
needs to spend adequate money to ensure that the Lummi Island community is
adequately represented and that all their concerns are incorporated. If they can do
that in-house, then do it.
Dawson stated she would encourage that they do as much of it in-house as
possible.
Brenner stated she would defer that to the Public Works Department. If the
department thinks that the County should go out on some of these things, then
they should do that.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Monsen stated a few things might be able to be done in-house. He
recommended that the information gathered from the community be done by a
third party, even if the County was capable of doing. The issues being discussed
are issues that are typically address through a subarea plan, which the County has
qualified people in the Planning Department to do, but this isn't an effort they can
do in the near future. The Planning Department staff is capable and qualified, but
the work is far enough out on their priority list that they are not available.
Brenner stated that if the Public Works Department and the community are
comfortable with doing the tasks in-house, then she would support it. She didn't
want to give a direction to the department that it all be done in-house. Monsen
stated he would work with the Lummi Island Transportation Committee on that.
Brenner stated it doesn’t matter what the County does, in-house or out of
house, if there isn't a feeling of ownership by the community out there.
Judy Olsen, Lummi Island Transportation Committee, stated there is another
committee forming on the island that will revisit the Comprehensive Plan. The
same person who chaired the group in 1979 is volunteering to chair it again. It is
very positive. There will be some good people. Their hope is that they can get an
outside consultant to lead this effort and work with this new group that is being
formed as well as the Transportation Committee. The island residents are divided,
but they are ready to look at these questions and issues. If it can be done well, it
is in need of being done. A lot of the islanders' frustration is that growth and ferry
issues haven't been addressed.
Brenner agreed that the biggest frustration on both sides is that a change in
ferry service would ramrod a change in how Lummi Island develops one way or the
other. No one wants to see that.
McShane moved to recommend supporting staff’s efforts in advertising for
consulting services on the twenty-year Lummi Island ferry planning.
Crawford asked if there was enough money in the Road fund to do that.
Monsen stated there is. The County Council would see the contract come forward
to the County Council. It is a road activity and, therefore, an eligible Road fund
expense. The only concern was going beyond evaluation of road interests into
general land use planning.
Bud Jewell, 3805 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated he'd been working
on ferry issues for this Council for almost 20 years. This is the first time they've
come up with a good plan to look into the future. When the question came up last
year, people came to him and said the bigger ferry would solve the problem. He
disagreed because they would not know until they look at the issue. He was
pleased to see this come up.
Motion carried unanimously.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 13
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 12/12/2000, Page 14
1
ADJOURN 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
______________________________
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______________________________ ___________________________
Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair